Comparative study of long-term efficacy of spinal fusion surgery and non-surgical treatment for chronic radicular lumbar disease
- PMID: 40105549
- PMCID: PMC11918860
- DOI: 10.1590/1806-9282.20240902
Comparative study of long-term efficacy of spinal fusion surgery and non-surgical treatment for chronic radicular lumbar disease
Abstract
Objective: The objective of this study was to compare the long-term efficacy of spinal fusion surgery versus non-surgical treatment for chronic radicular lumbar spondylopathy.
Methods: A total of 93 patients with chronic radicular lumbar spondylopathy admitted to our hospital from February 2020 to February 2021 were randomly divided into a non-surgical group (n=46, conservative treatment) and a surgical group (n=47, spinal fusion surgery). Efficacy, recurrence rate, pain index, lumbar function recovery, and quality of life were evaluated and compared between the groups.
Results: The surgical group had a higher total effective rate (97.87 vs. 86.96%, p<0.05) and a lower recurrence rate after 1 year (4.26 vs. 21.74%, p<0.05) compared to the non-surgical group. There was no significant difference in visual analog scale scores for lower back pain and lower limb pain between the groups before treatment and for the first 3 days (p>0.05). However, at 1 month, 3 months, and 1 year after treatment, the visual analog scale scores were significantly lower in the surgical group (p<0.05). The Japanese Orthopedic Association score showed no significant difference before treatment (p>0.05) but increased significantly in the surgical group after 1 month, 3 months, and 1 year (p<0.05). Similarly, there was no significant difference in the Short Form 36-Item Health Survey score before treatment (p>0.05), but the surgical group had significantly higher scores after 1 year (p<0.05).
Conclusion: Spinal fusion surgery offers better long-term efficacy than non-surgical treatment for chronic radicular lumbar spondylopathy. It effectively alleviates lower back and limb pain, promotes lumbar function recovery, and improves quality of life, making it a recommended treatment option.
Conflict of interest statement
Similar articles
-
Decision making in surgical treatment of chronic low back pain: the performance of prognostic tests to select patients for lumbar spinal fusion.Acta Orthop Suppl. 2013 Feb;84(349):1-35. doi: 10.3109/17453674.2012.753565. Acta Orthop Suppl. 2013. PMID: 23427903
-
Revision lumbar surgery in elderly patients with symptomatic pseudarthrosis, adjacent-segment disease, or same-level recurrent stenosis. Part 1. Two-year outcomes and clinical efficacy: clinical article.J Neurosurg Spine. 2013 Feb;18(2):139-46. doi: 10.3171/2012.11.SPINE12224. Epub 2012 Dec 11. J Neurosurg Spine. 2013. PMID: 23231354
-
Do measures of surgical effectiveness at 1 year after lumbar spine surgery accurately predict 2-year outcomes?J Neurosurg Spine. 2016 Dec;25(6):689-696. doi: 10.3171/2015.8.SPINE15476. Epub 2016 Jan 1. J Neurosurg Spine. 2016. PMID: 26722957
-
Long-term outcomes after revision neural decompression and fusion for same-level recurrent lumbar stenosis: defining the effectiveness of surgery.J Spinal Disord Tech. 2014 Oct;27(7):353-7. doi: 10.1097/BSD.0b013e31826105a5. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2014. PMID: 25247253
-
Clinical Outcomes of Posterolateral Fusion vs. Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Patients with Lumbar Spinal Stenosis and Degenerative Instability.Pain Physician. 2018 Jul;21(4):383-406. Pain Physician. 2018. PMID: 30045595 Clinical Trial.
References
-
- Cui X, Zhang D, Zhao Y, Song Y, He L, Zhang J. An open-label non-inferiority randomized trail comparing the effectiveness and safety of ultrasound-guided selective cervical nerve root block and fluoroscopy-guided cervical transforaminal epidural block for cervical radiculopathy. Ann Med. 2022;54(1):2681–2691. doi: 10.1080/07853890.2022.2124445. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources